On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:56:00 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:01Â pm, The Trucker
verizon.net> wrote:>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:44:44 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 8:14Â am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>>> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
>>>> fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first
>>>> existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher
>>>> consideration."
>>
>>>> -- Lincoln
>>
>>> While that is true, if we didn't store our labor in the
>>> form of capital, we'd still be in the stone age right
>>> now.
>>
>> Storing fruit in jars has nothing to do with "capital". Â Investing those
>> jars of fruit feeding the self or someone else while the self or
>> someone else weaves a basket to be used in gathering more fruit makes the
>> stored fruit disappear and the resulting basket is actual capital. Â The
>> fruit was __**NEVER**__ capital. You might call it savings. Â You might
>> even use it to bribe someone else into making a basket. Â In that case
>> you might call jars of fruit a store of value or even money. But the jars
>> of fruit are __**NEVER**__ capital.
>
> The definition of capital is:
>
> any form of wealth capable of being employed in the production
> of more wealth.
>
> It is not the case that the wealth has to not disappear.
Never said that. I said that the savings must be consumed -- i.e.
disappear.
> The hardware used in the means of production eventually
> wear out over time as well.
But that id irrelevant. They are NOT consumed in the process but very
slowly over time.
> Presumably, the glass jar
> itself would be considered capital.
Not unless it is used in the production of further wealth. Simply
providing a container for savings is not an investment in producing more
wealth that that which already exists.
> It is employed in the
> storage of fruit, which can then be kept until fruit is in shorter
> supply, thus making it more valuable. More wealth
> is thereby created, since the value is higher.
This is, in fact, one of the major flaws in Austrian and in latter day
neoclassical economic thinking. It is this very flaw that allows the
neoclassical lying pig to refer to money as being capital. Smith did the
same thing with gold. Speculative bets on shortages, or creating
shortages do absolutely nothing to enhance production. They, in fact,
impede production. The use of "savings" in this way is not an example of
capital.
> The wheel as concept, and wheels as actual physical
> objects are certainly capital. So my original statement
> still stands. If we hadn't stored our labor in the form of
> capital, we'd still be in the stone age.
The problem with your proclamation is that it is not true. We have seen
that money can be created from thin air and used to PRODUCE things. The
only "savings" necessary is actually excess production. The money directs
the flow of this excess. The only true "savings" are what is available in
nature; that which has not yet been exploited. So long as the planet is
still naturally productive or naturally abundant and there is one
unemployed person then there is ample resource for more production.
Savings, as it typically thought of, is not necessary to real production
of goods, capital goods or durable goods. or consumer goods.
Without the level of capital we currently employ a good number of the
people on this planet would most certainly die. That is certainly agreed.
But jars of peaches will not get us where we need to be.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
